I think this is an excellent initiative. I'm glad that it is being addressed now, when the succession is quite safe - rather than at some potential/mythical future point in which the succession might be in "crisis."

This issue has been raised regularly with the comment that the government is going to do something and nothing is ever done.

I don't think there is a need to change anything at the moment so why do so - but they will when the time comes.

If Kate's first child is a boy then they can put it off for another generation.

I think they should change it. Britain needs to come out of the dark ages and into the 21st Century already. Enough of this sexist crap.

It isn't as simple as changing the line of succession as there are so many other ways that women are treated differently to men within the royal structure e.g. the wife of a prince becomes a princess but the husband of a princess doesn't become a prince, the children of princes becomes HRH but not the children of princesses.

The government could also find itself with a debate that moves beyond the simple change in line of succession and the RF and government tend not to want to go that way.

The government will deal with the situation when it needs to - that is when a son is born who is younger than his sister but until then why open a can of worms?

And those kinds of traditions go way beyond the British system.. I mean, even in America's not-so-distant past it was the tradition to leave the plantation to the eldest son. And those principles continue even today in the South, to some extent.

Personally, I hope the BRF leaves things as they are.

Part of the mystique of the royal family is their dynasty.. their living history.. and preserving those traditions is more important, IMO, than "modernizing" the succession.

Just my two cents.

__________________┌ i vethed...nÔ i onnad. Minlű pedich nin i aur hen telitha. - Arwen & Aragorn, The Lord of the Rings(English translation: "This is not the end... it is the beginning. You told me once, this day would come.")

I agree. Incidentally, since you mentioned the eldest son tradition, I have always wondered why there is/has been a push in so many countries against women having less equal succession rights and no push against younger children having less equal succession rights. Perhaps one could argue that it is not fair in Norway for Martha Louise to be passed over in favor of Haakon simply because he's male, but why doesn't anyone ever argue that it is not fair in Denmark for Joachim to be passed over in favor of Fred simply because Fred's 13 months older?

but why doesn't anyone ever argue that it is not fair in Denmark for Joachim to be passed over in favor of Fred simply because Fred's 13 months older?

Good point, Maura, and I understand what everyone is saying about it being tradition, but this tradition has been broken several times, as someone previously mentioned Norway and Sweden (?), why not do it in Britain as well? It would be a good new start for them, not to mention, does the being Catholic thing even really apply these days? I don't understand why that still stands, especially nowadays.

Good point, Maura, and I understand what everyone is saying about it being tradition, but this tradition has been broken several times, as someone previously mentioned Norway and Sweden (?), why not do it in Britain as well? It would be a good new start for them, not to mention, does the being Catholic thing even really apply these days? I don't understand why that still stands, especially nowadays.

The reason for the Catholic ban is the same - it is the existing law and would open a can of worms to repeal it as well as allowing the parliament the chance to debate issues around the royal family best left alone.

As far as the Catholic ban goes.. though it stretches back to the Stuarts, you also have the added complication that the monarch is Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

Given this fact, it simply cannot be that the monarch, the consort or anyone in line to the succession is Catholic. So yes, it applies even today. And I doubt any religion other than Anglican would really be acceptable.. certainly not for the sovereign, who holds the title of Supreme Governor.

Traditions being broken in Norway and Sweden are one thing.. the UK is another matter entirely. The Queen is the head of state for all the countries in the Commonwealth. To change the rules of succession, it would have to be approved in every country that belonged to the Commonwealth.. not just England, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

To get all those countries to agree would be a task in itself, and one I'm sure no one wants to tackle unless or until its absolutely necessary.

__________________┌ i vethed...nÔ i onnad. Minlű pedich nin i aur hen telitha. - Arwen & Aragorn, The Lord of the Rings(English translation: "This is not the end... it is the beginning. You told me once, this day would come.")

As the vast majority of countries in the Commonwealth have their own Heads of State, and are republics, they wouldn't care less about what was happening to the monarch in Britain - it wouldn't affect them.

As for most of the rest - their constitutions have clauses that make it clear that the monarch of the UK is their monarch. There would be no need for them to even be consulted (that doesn't mean that they wouldn't be consulted but there is no real need). They couldn't do anything about it anyway. It certainly woudn't require legislation in all of them based on the precedent set in 1936 when only the British government passed the Abdication Act and none of the other governments were required to do so.

This is another argument for the republicans in these countries to use of course - the fact that legislation in Britain can change who it the expected Head of State of another country and they can't do anything about it.

So...what happens then if the monarch married a Jew, or a Hindu? The thought process is the same. We are over-complicating it. It could simply state the Monarch must remain in the Church of England, regardless of who they marry. Also, why not have equal rights succession? Again, just do like the other countries and state it starts at such and such time, with such and such person in line to the throne, like William and Catherine's children. My goodness, I am sure the government can do this and not topple over......

Parliament passes a law that only Prince Charles and his descendents are in the line of succession. This would be similar to the law passed in the 1700s to allow only The electress Sophia and her descendents to inherit the throne.

Next they scrap the rule that males preceed females.

That wouldnt effect anyone that was then in line but would allow future female eldest children to come before any brothers.

Changing the law on marriage to catholics or being a catholic might be a little more difficult but I dont see it as insurmountable.

I personally dont see why they couldnt then go the whole hog and also allow some future illigitimate heirs to inherit. ie where patternity is not in doubt.

Kate and wills have decided to marry and their children will be legitimate but in an age where so many do not marry I could see a time when the someone high in the line of succession might make a choice not to marry but still have children.

If we are not going to be fair and not have any discrimination, Why should they be discriminated against?

The whole system is discriminatory as the only person who can be Head of State is decided by an act of chance - based on who a person's parents are.
Why should it be the eldest child/son etc who inherits? Doesn't that discriminate against the younger children?
The problem with allowing illegitimate inheritance, even if acknowledged, is what happens if child A is acknowledged but child B, who is older isn't but is able to prove via DNA that they are the child of the monarch.
Personally I don't see any reason to change succession laws.

I honestly don't see anything wrong with the current inheritance laws.... (and because according to some here I am a "wannabe") was the male favoured primogeniture introduced with common law in the UK?

__________________There is no sense in running to something if you are running away from something else

The only problem I have with the current laws is that it favors the men - which is based of an age-old assumption dating back several hundred years that women were only around to make babies to continue the family line; nothing more. So the way the line of succession is set up now, it reflects this sexist view. Equal primogeniture is better.

Well said David. It's true what you have said, any changes would have to meet with the support and approval of all three parties, not just one or two, or one alone to be successful. The Catholic question would be a can of worms that I prefer not to think about. IF Catholics were allowed to the Monarch or Heir, there is the question of what religion are any children to be raised as? The Monarch is the Head of C of E, the Catholic Church prefers all children raised as Catholic. So do any males born remain Anglican and females Catholic. What if only females are born and the next Heir to the Throne is female? The family shuffling begins and it could be mass confusion.
I honestly don't see the British Monarchy changing the succession laws for a very long time and to be honest, it doesn't bother me.

. The Catholic question would be a can of worms that I prefer not to think about. IF Catholics were allowed to the Monarch or Heir, there is the question of what religion are any children to be raised as? The Monarch is the Head of C of E, the Catholic Church prefers all children raised as Catholic. So do any males born remain Anglican and females Catholic. What if only females are born and the next Heir to the Throne is female? The family shuffling begins and it could be mass confusion.

I really dont see this as a major problem either. There are instances of catholic and protestant royals marrying. In some cases the children have been raised as catholics and in some cases protestant. Thats a matter for the individuals concerned.

What seems to be the issue is the relationship between the Anglican Church and the Crown.

Since Henry VIII broke with Rome the Monarch has been head of the Anglican Church but that doesnt HAVE to remain so.

I'm not sure but I am assuming that other royal protestant monarchs are not head of their respective Churches. ie Norway, Danemark, Holland, Sweden. and I'm sure that was the case for former monarchies such as the previous german Kingdoms ( Bavaria, Hessen Kassel etc.)

I'm sure the Anglicans enjoy having the monarch as their head and will try and preserve that position but it doesnt HAVE to be so.